Showing posts with label Medicare. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Medicare. Show all posts

Sunday, July 19, 2020

Headlines


Trump stares down a ticking economic time bomb

Twitter says 130 people were targeted in hack that hijacked accounts of Elon Musk, Joe Biden

SCOTUS declines to reinstate votes of nearly 1 million Florida felons

All-time low coronavirus approval rating hurting Trump in swing states

Georgia governor sues to stop Atlanta mask mandate

Wall Street banks are in no rush to bring employees back to the office

White House divided over next phase of stimulus

Poll: Joe Biden leading President Trump in Texas

Democrats use Inspector General’s report to renew calls for Medicare chief’s ouster

European leaders gather for crunch talks on massive coronavirus fund

Report: Lincoln Project paid $2 million to firms owned by founders

Feinstein proposes halting Covid aid for states without masks mandates

STAND UP FOR AMERICA!

Tuesday, January 14, 2020

Headlines


Bernie campaign slams Warren as candidate of the elite

Protesters in Iran demand leaders quit after military admits it shot down passenger plane

Trump tweets in Farsi ... ‘Do not kill your protesters’ ...

Revealed: McCabe pushed ‘golden shower’ hoax — and Comey approved ...

Australia turns from defense to offense in wildfire battle

Trump tell Iranian protesters he stands with them and warns Tehran: ‘The world is watching’

Last Den [candidate] all in on Medicare for All ...

Andrew Yang blasts DNC after missing polling threshold

Trump suggests he’d invoke executive privilege to block Bolton testimony

The stock market has not been as richly valued or avidly loved in two years

USA warns Iraq about losing bank account access if troops told to leave ...

USA celebrates Taiwan leader’s reelection ... blackeye for Beijing ...

Friday, April 19, 2019

Single-Payer



“If you think healthcare is expensive now, just wait until it’s free.” — P.J. O’Rourke

Most Democrat candidates for president have endorsed “Medicare for All” ... or a nice way of saying socialized medicine. Candidates like Bernie Sanders have had some success in selling this enticing concept to his adoring audiences because:

- In it’s extreme form, it will eliminate monthly premium payments, possibly co-pays, annual limits, and the need for supplemental private insurance. Obviously, this furthest left version may not be what is proposed by all the Democrat candidates ... for, as we know, we are the frogs in the pot of water as it is being slowly heated up on the Socialist gas burner.

- Or course, Obamacare will disappear like the Cheshire Cat, but it’s smile ... no preexisting conditions exclusions and children covered until age 26 ... may remain.

- Drugs will be free or priced low like they are in Europe and  Canada.

However, even in its less-than-extreme version, Medicare for All will mean that retirees will be faced with severely deteriorating medical treatments ... long wait times for appointments, more impersonal medical visits, triage based on age to determine whether treatments will be even offered for many serious illnesses (better known as death panels) ... and likely severe doctor shortages. In other words, our healthcare experience will be very much like what is received today by indigents in hospital emergency rooms.

Of course, the bad news is, in its extreme form, Medicare for All will eliminate the private healthcare insurance industry, worth close to half a trillion dollars ... and the concomitant hit to many citizens’ retirement accounts. This would be essentially an enormous capital confiscation on the part of the federal government. The worse news will be that this public program will cost taxpayers $30 trillion over 10 years. Will taxes then have to go up immensely to pay for this largess? You betcha Red Ryder!

When liberals push socialized medicine they often laud England’s National Health Service. What they neglect to say is that over 11% of Brits have private health insurance or medical concierge services ... so they can avoid  the horrors of socialized medicine. And, of course Mick Jagger chose to get his heart surgery in the United States rather than some moldy hospital in Londonstan.

But, most depressing of all, tens of millions of people, who never paid a nickle into Medicare, will be getting exactly the same diminished medical care as we saps who have been paying mucho dinero into this program ... and supplements ... for many decades. Seems fair to me ...

Wednesday, April 17, 2019

Headlines


On Tax Day, Trump tax cuts remain deeply unpopular

Huawei is ‘open’ to selling 5G chips to Apple for IPhone, making a big shift in strategy

Indiana Mayor Pete announces 2020 run ...

Trump celebrates golfing buddy Tiger Woods’ Masters victory

As Dems debate Medicare for All, a less radical idea stalls in the blue states

American Airlines cancels all 737 MAX flights through August 18

Goldman Sachs: Trump re-election likely ...

Tory establishment devises ‘stop Boris’ plan ...

Trump’s campaign raises $30 million in first quarter

US is said to water down demand that China curb subsidies amid push for a trade deal

Sarah Sanders: Congress not smart enough to read [Trump] tax returns

Tlaib blasts Dems: They put Muslims in photos to show party ‘diverse’

Wednesday, January 30, 2019

Headlines


Democrats trash Howard Schultz's 2020 float

Most Americans don't want Trump to declare national emergency to get his border wall

Chicago coldest ever? Frostbite in minutes!

Kamala Harris pushes Medicare for All bid for presidency

The case for Schultz: He could save Democrats from far-left nominee

Special counsel investigation is close to completion, says acting-FBI director Whitaker

USA reveals charges against Huawei days before China talks resume ...

GOP Rep. demands probe into how CNN was alerted to [Roger] Stone arrest

Exclusive: Trump EPA won't limit 2 toxic chemicals in drinking water

Pelosi invites Trump to hold State of the Union on Feb 5

Israeli scientists think they found cancer cure ...

Ilhan Omar opposes sanctions on Venezuela -- but want them on Israel


Friday, October 12, 2018

Headlines


Trump, no longer ratings Gold, loses his prime time spot on Fox News

Wall Street loses top through world markets as rate fear shake investors

Bezos loses $9.1 billion [in one day] ...

More illegal alien births in L.A. than total births in 14 U.S. states

Trump: Fed's have 'gone crazy'

Nearly $13 billion wiped off cryptocurrenciey market s as major coins plunge

CNN mocks Kanye [West] as 'token Negro' ...

Susan Rice's Republican son assaulted at pro-Kavanaugh rally

'Just ridiculous lies' Dems incensed over misleading GOP ads on Medicare for All

Russian space rocket fails in mid-air, two-man US-Russian crew lands safely

Mortgage rates 8-year high ...

McConnell: 'We're committed to help president get wall funding'

Thursday, August 23, 2018

Headlines


Why 'Medicare for all' is proving unpopular in Democrat primaries

Sen. Elizabeth Warren's new reform bill would ban members of Congress from owning individual stocks

Israel eases gun controls following lobe-wolf attacks ...

Rand Paul: Brennan's a 'national security risk'

Sentencing reform to test [Tom] Cotton's clout with Trump

China's central bank official rebuts Trump's claim it is manipulating the yuan

Google sued for tracking users when 'Location History' turned off ...

Donald Trump deports 95-year-old Nazi guard

Trump issues rollback of Obama's biggest climate rule

China's biggest risk may be its property values -- not the trade war

Measles cases hit record high in Europe ...

Report: [Trump] 'Not thrilled' with Fed Chair Pwell over tate hikes

Tuesday, June 19, 2018

Headlines


Congress may snub Trump on wall, risking shutdown

US, South Korea to announce suspension of 'large scale' military drills this week

Trump ream predicts Mueller report soon ...

Nearly 220 Texas school districts allow school staff to be armed

Republicans give up on Medicare overhaul

Elon Musk tells employees that 'rascal improvements' are needed to hit quarterly targets

BOSTON GLOBE columnist suspended for fabrications ...

Trump: 'Sanctions will remain' while we work with NK to denuking

Trump: Pruitt has done a 'fantastic job,' but 'I'm not happy with certain things'

Why China 'holds all the aces' in a full-blown US-China trade war

N.Y. assembly passes single-payer health care ...

Spain's Socialist government vows to dismantle fences hindering migrants

Thursday, June 07, 2018

Headlines


NFL players rip into Trump after he disinvites Eagles to White House

Ted Cruz lays out the constitutional case for Trump pardoning himself

China agrees to buy $70 billion of U.S. goods to fend off tariffs ...

Trot: McCabe seeks immunity deal for testimony

Medicare to go broke three years earlier than expected, trustees say

Another Trump campaign aide invited to Cambridge event where Spygate began

[Dennis] Rodman role at summit?

Ir am plans increased uranium enrichment

Judge orders Manafort to respond to jury tampering charges

Senators to roll out legislation requiring Trump get congressional approval for tariffs

McConnell cancels [Senate] recess ...

Hawaii volcano lava destroys hundreds of homes overnight

Friday, May 05, 2017

Confusopolies


Scott Adams is right again ... nobody really understands all the ins and outs of Obamacare or Trumpcare ... "confusopolies" -- laws designed to confound voters with complexity ... see: Dilbert Blog. However, there are some Occam's razors that can cut through some of this complexity. Let me offer a few that I think clarifies things a mite:

- In 1980, healthcare costs consumed 10% of the US economy. Today, after over 36 years of "solutions" this sector has grown to almost 18% ... see:  Commonwealth Fund. So, none of these schemes, including Obamacare, has bent down the cost curve. And, it seems problematic that Trumpcare will succeed where other confusopolies have failed.

- One reason for such a large share of our GNP, that healthcare consumes, is the false notion that healthcare insurance (including Medicaid and Medicare) equals healthcare. For years every American, including immigrants ... legal and illegal ...have been guaranteed healthcare. When you insert a middleman between a patient and a doctor, you by definition increase costs. The bill of goods that liberals have sold to Americans is that everyone needs healthcare insurance (i.e., a middleman). Why? Since this is one major reason for our inflation in healthcare costs?

- Flash ... the liberals ultimate solution to this confusopoly, single-payer healthcare (i.e. socialized medicine), does not eliminate these insurance middlemen ... it just replaces them with government bureaucrats. When was the last time that government was more efficient and effective than private industry? Conservative Charles Krauthammer believes that, within 7 years years, we will be forced into having a single payer system ... the sotto voce goal of Obamacare. This will mean the ultimate distruction of what was once the world's  premier healthcare system.

- Another reason that U.S. healthcare costs are so high is that, because of the insertion of insurance companies between patients and doctors, free-market forces have disappeared. A patient who gets a knee replacement does not know (nor care) if it costs $2,000 or $20,000 ... and, in fact, seldom actually sees the ultimate bill? So, what do you think the cost turns out to be?

- To make matters even worse, liberals have sold Americans on the notion that, even without mandated healthcare insurance, people can wait until they are sick to buy such insurance ... or what has been known as "no denial for pre-existing conditions." This is like allowing you to buy home fire insurance just when the fire engines are on their way ... clearly fiscal insanity.

The real resolution for run-away healthcare costs, if the American people want a solution, would be disintermediation ... the elimination of the healthcare middlemen ... and the unleashing of free-market forces. Trumpcare takes baby steps in this direction. Will it, or its Senate remake, continue on this path? The 2018 midterm elections will be determinative. Let's hope Krauthammer is wrong for a change.

An easy way to tell whether the American consumer will be the winner when the Obamacare fix is finished ... watch to see if the stock prices of the healthcare insurers tank. If so, we win.

Friday, March 24, 2017

Death Spiral


"You really don't have health insurance if you can't afford to use it."

On TV this morning there was a representative from Tennessee (who is also a doctor) commenting on the overhaul of Obamacare. He sat me up when he related that 60-70% of hospital bills in his state were not getting paid because the deductibles on the insurance plans under Obamacare are so high that they force patients to pay these bills out-of-pocket ... for which they have not the money. In other words, even though an additional 5 or 6 million people may have gotten insurance under Obamacare (an equal number falling under expanded-Medicaid, paid for by the rest of us), these people -- along will millions more who lost what was called by Obama "bad apple" insurance and have had to purchase these high-deductible, high-premium, high-co-pay policies -- cannot use this insurance for the reasons stated above.

Now you understand why hospitals are under such financial distress, why emergency rooms have not been emptied as promised, and why Obamacare is so unpopular (except for those being subsidized under expanded Medicaid). I don't care what phony polls may say. There are still enough people receiving health insurance under their businesses or under Medicaid/Medicare that the system has not yet completely collapsed. But Obamacare is in a death spiral because it is a jackass ... a race horse designed by a committee of bureaucrats who don't believe in free markets ... and who colluded with the insurance and drug companies with the notion that they knew better than Adam Smith. Well they didn't ... and they left a pile of steaming bleep for the Republicans.

Can Obamacare be fixed by Ryan/Trump? I am inclined to agree with Rand Paul ... let's euthanize this jackass and design a transition back to the free market ... and, in the process, save our hospitals. In the meantime make the insurance and drug companies compete for our money instead of colluding with the politicians.

Friday, October 21, 2016

Headlines


These headlines are real ... they have all been discovered on Internet news sites.

Suit: 90% of 'genuine' Apple products on Amazon fake ...

9 times Liberals claimed elections were stolen ...

Fact checkers with her: 'False' Clinton wants 'open borders'

Poll: 46% say widespread voter fraud will take place on election day

Oprah pitches Clinton: Don't have to like her!

Risk of mass exodus of doctors from Medicare ...

Clinton campaign and Harry Reid worked with NYT to smear State Dept watchdog

Clinton under fire for posting 'extremely classified' nuke launch time

MS-13 gang violence rages in Long Island ... Remains of 5th teen found

University bans 'Unborn Lives Matter' posters.

UK: Violent crime up 24 percent in year

US service member killed by roadside bomb north of Mosul

Monday, January 28, 2013

Six Old Men on Entitlement Reform

Not the Real Signers

This blog entry is an user-submission by a reader (Brad Stroup).  I must relay the fact that Brad is generally of the liberal persuasion … as are most of his friends.  But this areopagitica is very conservative in its tone and purpose.  I will not divulge the other five signers of this pledge other than to indicate that their first priority is their country.  Here is their argument for entitlement reform: 
We six old men [all from Tucson, Arizona)] oppose the “me first” culture of the elderly who demand no reforms in entitlement especially in “retirement” states like Arizona.  Most of us over 65 have been guaranteed subsidies in the form of Social Security and Medicare for the rest of our lives that far exceed our contributions.   If we include the “baby-boomers” retiring in the next few years, we elderlies have more annual income than people our age have ever had, and yet we expect the rest of you to take care of us in our leisure years.  Thanks to the profligate generosity of our nation over the past 50 years, we have created an approaching train wreck no one wants to face.  
The AARP’s lobbying efforts to protect old people at everyone else’s expense make no moral or economic sense.  The nation simply cannot afford Medicare and Social Security without some cost reductions.  Medicare co-pays to patients should be increased; Social Security retirement ages should be increased to 67 or 70.  Both entitlements should be means-tested so that those who have more do not take from those whose needs are great.  If we don’t reform these programs now, they won’t be there when younger people go to the window for benefits.
To my amazement, most of the return-e-mail dissenters to this pledge were usually liberals … often radical (and semi-famous) liberals … offering lots of AARP-inspired me-first excuses ranging from “I paid for this benefit and don’t you dare touch it” to “when defense spending is brought under control, then our entitlements will be affordable” (thinking defense spending represents “over 55% of Federal spending" – a liberal chimera.)  For the real facts, see: Heritage Foundation Analysis).  And, if you want to see how an uber-liberal mind works, please see the link I received back as justification for this original outrageous statement: War Resisters League Rationales.  I guess [too] many Americans believe Obama when he said [to Boehner], “[government] spending is not a problem.”

I have volunteered to Brad to be added to the “List of Six.”

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Medical Fads

When was the last time a child you know had his/her tonsils out? How about an adenoidectomy? A study in New York City in the 1930s had over 90% of its children with tonsillitis resulting in surgery or a recommendation of same. Today the equivalent statistic is below 1% (see: The Pediatric Journal).  Of late, I even can’t recall anyone I know getting his/her appendix removed. Yes, I know, the use of antibiotics may have a lot to do with the dramatic reduction in these medical procedures, but it can’t be the total reason. May I suggest that medical fads exist and that this may be one reason for our spiraling health-care costs … particularly when someone else pays for things?

What are the latest oft-expensive medical procedures that deserve to be evaluated for such faddish “crowding in?” Maybe botox injections, cellulite reductions, other vanity plastic-surgeries (Nancy Pelosi per esempio), C-sections, and maybe even some joint replacement procedures (see: Cracked Article). Yes, I know of those people where a knee replacement was a medical necessity, but I still see or hear of others where it may have been palliative or even faddish. (I, myself had been recommended for such an operation.) And, how about those ads on TV that push those fancy self-propelled wheelchairs?

Too often in the news we see of some medical quackery that operate clinics that will perform some expensive Medicare- or Medicaid-paid procedure or surgery over and over again on anyone who is willing to submit to this charlatanism. Why do these patients offer themselves up for such suffering? Often, I think, for bragging rights, borderline masochism, vanity, or even Munchausen’s syndrome.  Estimates of the “waste, fraud and abuse” in our medical system run into the tens of billion dollars per year (see: HHS Testimony), but somehow we can never seem to reduce this number significantly.

May I offer that some targeted and repeated public-service announcements, pointing out these medical fads and their consequences, might be an interesting path to follow? Escalating medical co-pays based upon the degree of faddishness involved might also be tried? These approaches do seem to be working for reducing cigarette smoking.

Afterthought:  I don't know why I didn't first suggest this solution to fix waste, fraud and abuse in the medical system ... reintroduce market forces into medical payments (Ryan's approach).


Monday, August 13, 2012

The Upcoming Debates -- Ryan


In the upcoming debates, there are ten questions I would like to be asked of Paul Ryan:

1) You were a member of the Simpson-Bowles commission and voted against its final recommendations which President Obama ignored anyway ... costing us two additional years of huge budget deficits. If you could do it all over, would you have voted for these reforms?

2) You have been widely castigated for putting forward two federal budgets that, although they passed the House, died in the Senate.  You have been around Washington for a number of years and, assumedly knew what Harry Reid would do, so why did you allow yourself to be subject to such political ridicule for no real national economic benefit?  

3) The Democrats are continuing to repeat the mantra that your tax reform proposals will cut taxes for the rich while increasing taxes on middle-class Americans.  Without getting too deep into the weeds, how can you simply explain exactly how your and Romney’s current tax proposals will affect the various classes of our citizens?

4) Your suggested reforms to Medicare are being used by your opposition to frighten our senior citizens.  How can you here assure our seniors that they will NOT be pushed off a cliff in their wheelchairs?

5) For American citizens, below age 55, you have proposed a Medicaid voucher program whereby they can shop around for health insurance that suits their needs better.  Democrats retort that these premium supports will fall further and further behind their actual medical care costs … and the deficiency will come out of their pockets.  How do you respond to such charges?

6) Your solution to our Medicaid problems involves block-granting states federal money so that they can solve the escalating costs in these programs each in their own way.  How can you be sure that this process will not be equally inflationary and, instead of one large national medical care cost problem for indigent citizens, we will not end up with fifty separate state problems.

7) You voted for Medicare, Part B under President Bush.  If you had a Mulligan on this vote, would you do it again?

8) In order to move toward a balanced federal budget, I assume you also would pare back spending in the discretionary portion of the federal budget.  Please specify what your top three priorities would be ... and how far would you go with Defense Department cuts?

9) You have virtually no foreign policy experience and, since you are only a heartbeat away from becoming the leader of the Western World, what are your foreign policy concerns and priorities?

10) You are widely respected by your House colleagues for your camaraderie and working relations.  What role do you see yourself playing, if you are elected, in helping Romney push his legislative agenda though what might be a hostile Congress.

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Health-care Rx


I'm beginning to believe (no, I know) that Congress and this administration are a bunch of doofuses ... witness their (independent of their political party) feeble and/or self-serving attempts to solve our health-care costs problem. First, I have an issue with the premise that our medical costs are "spiraling out of control." Fifteen years ago national heath-care costs represented 14% of GNP and today they are just over 17% of GNP. Wow!! Let's destroy our economy and our way of life for a three percentage point growth in health care costs over fifteen years.

But, OK, I will concede that we can't let this trend continue forever and therefore the major thrust of "health-care reform" should be cost containment and (hopefully) rollback ... not expanded standard health-care insurance coverage (which, by the fact that it inserts a government middleman into the existing process, is sure to be more expensive.)

There seems to me a number of obvious solutions for containing or reducing the cost of health care in this country:

1) Eliminate emergency room (E.R.) health care -- indigent outpatient clinics need to be opened in hospitals with appointments required, a minimum payment requirement (say $20?), and reasonable Medicare/Medicaid reimbursements. (This is the way it was 50 years ago.) Non-emergency medical treatment should not be permitted in E.R.s.

2) Tort reform -- today many doctors pay hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in medical malpractice insurance. This money must be made up in patient fees and, often, in dubious other practices (non-required tests) which compromise the integrity of many medical practitioners. We also need to eliminate lawyers' advertising on TV (which once was the case prior to the tsunami of litigious medical bonanzas, such as John Edwards reveled in)

3) Pooled major-medical insurance -- there should be made available a centralized comprehensive major-medical insurance provider separated from standard medical insurance. It can be private (preferred) or public, but should be so large as to spread the risk of medical catastrophes over virtually the entire population of this country. It would be available for individuals to purchase, but HMOs and other health insurance companies could re-insure through this entity (at a cheaper cost) the major-medical portion of their existing coverage.

4) Huge pooled drug purchasing at cheaper prices -- separated from normal medical insurance. Can be done privately (preferred) or publicly (like the current Medicare/Medicaid drug offerings). HMOs and other health insurance companies could take advantage of this consortium to reduce the drug purchasing costs of their health coverage. We should also eliminate all prescribed-drug ads on television (like it used to be). This would help reduce the cost of drug marketing to the pharmaceutical companies which might help offset the gross margin pressure forced by the cheaper prices engendered by this pooled purchasing.

5) No elective medical procedures should be paid for by health insurance companies. The cost of such things a liposuction, breast augmentation, etc. should be entirely borne by the recipient. This would cut back on many of these self-indulgent medical costs.

6) More program options for standard (non-major) medical insurance coverage. Families of two person (such as retired couples) should not be forced into a "family" category with young married couples with higher premiums than are justified.

7) Cutoffs for the tax-deductibility of gold-plated medical insurance premiums -- companies (and government entities such as Congress) should not provide (and pay for) employees tax-deductible health insurance whose premiums exceed a maximum level (say $20,000 per year per family). Those plans exceeding that level would incur a tax liability to the recipient

8) Eliminate from Medicaid and Medicare coverage the following groups -- prisoners (2.3 million), illegal immigrants (12 million), Americans living abroad (6.6 million), and millionaires (40,000).
9) All non-major-medical doctor or hospital visits and prescription drugs that are covered by standard medical insurance should have a co-pay of at least 5% of the cost to the provider. This would encourage better economic decision-making (such as switching to generic drugs and eschewing non-required tests) on the part of insured recipients.